# Lateral Cephalometric Radiography: Principles, Common Positioning Errors, and AI-Driven Quality Control

**Authors:** Rossana Izzetti, Maria Pisano, Chiara Cinquini, Lorenzo Cinci, Antonio Barone, Cosimo Nardi

PMC · DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics16040543 · Diagnostics · 2026-02-12

## TL;DR

This paper reviews lateral cephalometric radiography, focusing on proper positioning, common errors, and how AI can improve diagnostic accuracy.

## Contribution

The paper introduces a synthesis of AI-driven quality control methods for improving diagnostic reliability in lateral cephalometric radiography.

## Key findings

- Precise patient positioning is crucial to avoid inaccuracies in cephalometric measurements.
- AI tools can enhance workflow consistency but require validation and human oversight.
- LCR offers a favorable radiation dose and diagnostic utility compared to 3D imaging.

## Abstract

This narrative review provides a contemporary synthesis of lateral cephalometric radiography (LCR), addressing both its foundational principles and the impact of technological integration, with a focus on enhancing diagnostic reliability. A structured literature search (PubMed, up to September 2025) was conducted around five domains: LCR’s diagnostic role, acquisition methods, positioning errors, comparisons with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven quality control. Precise patient positioning—maintaining symmetry and a horizontal Frankfort plane—is paramount, as common errors (tilting, rotation, nodding) introduce quantifiable inaccuracies in key measurements. While digital innovation, particularly deep learning models for automated landmark detection and error flagging, improves the consistency of workflow, current AI tools require validation and human oversight to manage limitations in generalizability. When contextualized against three-dimensional imaging, LCR maintains a favorable balance of diagnostic utility and lower radiation dose, supporting its selective, indication-based use in contemporary practice. Ultimately, this review suggests that adherence to a meticulous acquisition technique remains the cornerstone of reliable LCR analysis, even as AI and digital tools evolve to augment the clinician’s role.

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** Class II malocclusions (MESH:D008312), injury to (MESH:D014947), Head (MESH:D006258), LCR (MESH:D010509), cervical lordosis (MESH:D008141), craniofacial asymmetry (MESH:D005146), depression (MESH:D003866), Chin (MESH:D000094222), malocclusion (MESH:D008310), craniofacial anomalies (MESH:D019465)
- **Chemicals:** LCR (-)
- **Species:** Canis lupus familiaris (dog, subspecies) [taxon 9615], Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12938915/full.md

## Figures

10 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12938915/full.md

## References

55 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12938915/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12938915